om the official records:

The freedom of elections was further impaired by "frequent
false returns," made by the sheriffs. Against these the
people had no sufficient redress, for the sheriffs were
responsible neither to them nor to officers of their
appointment. And how could a more pregnant cause of
discontent exist in a country where the elective franchise
was cherished as the dearest civil privilege?--If land is to
be taxed, none but landholders should elect the
legislature.--The other freemen, who are the more in number,
may refuse to be bound by those laws in which they have no
representation, and we are so well acquainted with the
temper of the people that we have reason to believe they had
rather pay their taxes than lose that privilege.

Would those statesmen have dared to tax those landholders and yet
deny them the privilege of choosing their representatives? And
if, forsooth, they had, would not each one of you have declared
such act unconstitutional and unjust? We are the daughters of
those liberty-loving patriots. Their blood flows in our veins,
and in view of the recognized physiological fact that special
characteristics are transmitted from fathers to daughters, do you
wonder that we tax-paying, American-born citizens of these United
States are here to protest in the name of liberty and justice? We
recognize, however, that you are not responsible for the present
political condition of women, and that the question confronting
you, as statesmen called to administer justice under existing
conditions, is, "What are the capacities of this great class for
self-government?" You have cautiously summoned us to adduce proof
that the ballot in the hands of women would prove a help, not a
hindrance; would bring wings, not weights.

First, then, we ask you in the significant name of history to
read the record of woman as a ruler from the time when Deborah
judged Israel, and the land had rest and peace forty years, even
down to this present when Victoria Regina, the Empress Queen,
rules her vast kingdom so ably that we sometimes hear American
men talk about a return "to the good old ways of limited
monarchy," with woman for a ruler. John Stuart Mill, after
studious resear